“Professor Packer, one of the leading Christian voices of the twentieth century, is amongst those who have voted to stand with authentic and orthodox Anglicans rather than those who have undermined biblical truth over many decades and most recently by their innovations regarding homosexual practice. As one of these he has now become a target for revisionist aggression. Once again the intolerance and anti-liberal heart of liberal Christianity has been exposed.”

The move to revoke the licences of David Short and Jim Packer and to take away their orders as clergy puts these two godly, faithful brothers in Christ under still more pressure as they stand up for the gospel and the authority of God’s word. 

If you agree, add your message to this post.  And may I call on the moderator to contact David and Jim and alert them to the support they have from Australian evangelicals?  It would be great if more than one hundred people at least posted their support for our two brothers and the faithful congregations they pastor.

Philip,

I’m certainly happy to declare my support for Jim and David (no relation, except in Christ) and for their congregations.

Mark Short
Rector Anglican Parishes of Turvey Park & Tarcutta
Archdeacon
Anglican Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn

When I was a young Christian in the late 1970’s I remember that it was reading J I Packer’s Knowing God that really opened up my eyes to the marvels of God’s grace. Just recently my 21-year old daughter put on her Facebook site that J I Packer was her favourite author, and has been working her way through the (latest edition of the) same book! These two generations of Christians are grateful to God for what he has done through Professor Packer’s faithful ministry, and I would like to join in expressing my support for him (and for David Short) and amazement at the actions of the local bishop.

Philip Griffin - 03 March 2008 01:48 PM

The move to revoke the licences of David Short and Jim Packer and to take away their orders as clergy puts these two godly, faithful brothers in Christ under still more pressure as they stand up for the gospel and the authority of God’s word. 

Hi Philip

For those of us a little less in the know - who is taking away the licenses of David and Jim - and on what grounds?  Links to articles etc would be helpful.

Most certainly, we need to condemn any attack on bible believe Christianity.

Mike

Hi Mike,

The bishop of the diocese in which David works is taking this action, and the story is found on this website.  I’m sorry for not making that clear; I’m a real novice with the technical aspects of using these forums.

Mark Thompson, President of ACL, has issued a statement, and it is that which I have quoted.

The Titus One Nine blog site - http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/ -
has some background on this too.

For what its worth from non-Anglican, non-Sydney evangelicals, our support and prayers are with David Short, Jim Packer, the congregation of St John’s Shaugnessy and other faithful Canadian parishes.

Fred and Lydia Smith

Thanks Philip

Following up the links you gave, people can read the SA article here and the Anglican Church League statement of support here.

The SA article starts:

Ecclesiastical charges have been filed by a Canadian Bishop against former Sydney Anglican, the Rev David Short and one of the world’s top Anglican theologians, Dr J.I. Packer.

Bishop Michael Ingham has launched legal action over the vote by their congregation in Vancouver to seek alternative oversight from a South American bishop.

From a quick read, it sounds like the congregation of St John’s in Vancouver have voted to seek alternative oversight, as their bishop openly supports same sex unions (and insists they do the same?).  The bishop is not happy, and so is taking this action against Rev Short and Dr J.I. packer.

This is something worth praying about.

Mike

Hi all,

I sat under David Short’s teaching at the Katoomba Men’s Convention a few years ago, and found him to be a great speaker and a Godly interpreter of God’s Word.

I’m sure JI Packer is pretty good at those things too.

Cheers,
Edwin

This is deeply troubling. I can think of no greater way to make that stand than in prayer.

For this Canadian bishop to lay “Ecclesiastical charges” against one of the world’s top evangelical Anglican theologians ( Dr J.I. Packer ) - who is just holding fast to clear Biblical teachings - just shows how far some bishops have fallen away from the ‘straight and narrow’ ( pun intended ). This truly is a battle against false teachers who are unwilling to accept the authority of scripture - but prefer the acceptance of unrepentant sinful men and women who are unwilling to submit their life-styles to God. It just shows the huge chasm that exists between ‘churchianity’ and ‘Christianity’.

I will indeed be in prayerful support for our brothers David and Jim - and their congregations.

Philip Griffin - 03 March 2008 01:48 PM

“Professor Packer, one of the leading Christian voices of the twentieth century, is amongst those who have voted to stand with authentic and orthodox Anglicans rather than those who have undermined biblical truth over many decades and most recently by their innovations regarding homosexual practice. As one of these he has now become a target for revisionist aggression. Once again the intolerance and anti-liberal heart of liberal Christianity has been exposed.”

The move to revoke the licences of David Short and Jim Packer and to take away their orders as clergy puts these two godly, faithful brothers in Christ under still more pressure as they stand up for the gospel and the authority of God’s word.

Whilst not detracting from their stand for the truth of God’s Word or their godliness, what do you expert the Bishop to do but revoke their license - they are in rebellion against his authority as a duly appointed Bishop?

If the Bishop was godly and Short/Packer were heretics we would applaud their licenses being withdrawn.

In my view if the diocese is no longer authentically Christian they should go forth and leave the property - if they want the property let them negotiate with the Diocese of New Westminster. If Christ Church St Laurence or St James, King St wanted to leave Sydney Diocese would you let them go with their property?

I can tell you on the basis of a particular experience in my own Presbytery, Presbyterians would never allow a renegade Parish take its property with it.

I put my support in too.  Let’s continue to stand in prayer for our fellow servants of the gospel of Jesus Christ, that Christ died for our sins, and on the third day was raised to life.

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

1 Cor. 15:3-5 (NIV)

How’s Packer involved, is it his church?

In response to David Palmer, whilst I do not agree with you, I don’t wan’t to debate the issue of who should own the property etc on this thread.  Perhaps if you wanted to debate that you could start a separate thread.  I’d like to keep the focus here on support for two brothers in Christ who need to know we stand with them in their struggle for the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

I have done a bit of research on this and the facts are not as bad as it seems.

You can read the full story here

While we do indeed stand with them on their principals at the same time we need to recognize that if they come under the authority of another Arch Bishop and their diocese then it is that AB who must license them. So if they came under the jurisdiction of Sydney, it would be Peter Jensen who would give them the license to minister.

Can we be clear about the position of Dr. Packer? He is indeed recognized as a prominent theologian, and highly respected.
He is also a priest, and as such licensed by his bishop to serve as an honourary assistant at St. John’s Shaughnessy. Dr. Packer has held that position for many years. Until recently, the parish congregation considered itself in the Diocese of New Westminster. This was the formal arrangment. Relations were indeed estranged, for the parish, in protest of the decision of the Diocesan Synod in 2002 to request of the bishop a rite of same sex blessings, has since then refused to pay its financial assessment. But it was still in the diocese and Dr. Packer was a priest licensed to his parish, despite any public statements he made. He did not submit a letter of resignation.
Following the meeting of the parish congregation on Feb. 13, 2008, after which it was widely reported that the parish congregation had voted to come under the episcopal jurisdiction of the Province of the Southern Cone in South America, the bishop has asked Dr. Packer and seven other priests whether they still consider themselves in the diocese. They have two months to reply. At this point no communication has been received. If the priests choose not to reply, the bishop will (quite reasonably) have no choice but to assume they have left, and so declare they have abandoned their ministry. The bishop has not suspended anyone, but is seeking to learn whether certain of his priests are in or out of his diocese.
It would be sad to lose such a world-renowned theologian as Dr. Packer, but the choice is his, and I am sure that he will do as his conscience dictates.
Neale Adams
Communications Officer
Diocese of New Westminster

I think it is a pragmatic matter more so than a ethical matter of church polity and is no different then what happens regularly in Sydney when a minister is issued his license to minister and when they are assigned to another diocese their license is revoked in Sydney and reissued in the other diocese.

David Palmer - 03 March 2008 08:49 PM

Whilst not detracting from their stand for the truth of God’s Word or their godliness, what do you expert the Bishop to do but revoke their license - they are in rebellion against his authority as a duly appointed Bishop?

If the Bishop was godly and Short/Packer were heretics we would applaud their licenses being withdrawn.

If the reports are true, this is not all the bishop wants to do, David. He also wants them declared no longer ordained. That seems - from a distance - quite petty. Especially for men whose ministries I believe are godly and faithful.